alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Mr. Mark W. Atwood 

Cozen O'Connor 

1627 I St. NW, Ste. 1100 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Issue date: October 16, 2014 

Authority expires: December 2, 2014 

NOTICE OF CONSISTENCY 

Kalitta Air, L.L.C. 

is a properly certificated carrier that holds authority to conduct charter operations to and from China. Based on 

a proposal submitted by the carrier, we have determined that the operations comply with the applicable 

Department regulations and the provisions of the 2014-2015 U.S.-China Protocol. 

Number of Flights: five (5) one-way charters1 

Flight Date(s): November 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23, and 29-30, 2014 

Points: Shanghai (PVG)- Anchorage (ANC*) - Chicago (ORD) 

Equipment: Boeing 747-400 

The U.S. carrier operating the above charter flight should report, in writing, to the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing 

Division (X-44), Office of International Aviation, Department of Transportation, on its operation for the 

preceding month by the tenth of each month whether the flights operated. 

This notice is valid only for the flight contained in the above program. 

* Denotes technical stop only. 

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: 

www.regulations.gov 

1 Following our grant ofKalitta Air L.L.C.'s request for five (5) one-way charter allocation, 46 one-way charter allocations remain 

available in the Zone 1 charter pool for the 2014/15 charter year.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply563Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Pamela Snyder ... (not verified)PermalinkMay 16, 2017 - 10:40pmHow wonderful!    As the title of the children's book states... you built ramps to :   Make Way for Ducklings!  _x000D_
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
April 11, 2007

26370

#### Kuamoo v. State, Dept. of Agriculture

Affirmed
#### GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Association, Appellant, v. Robert O. LISTER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 46660.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

July 8, 1975.

Released for Publication by Order of Court of Appeals July 31, 1975.

Edwin McComas, Elk City, for appellant.

Ivester, Ivester & Ivester, Sayre, for ap-pellee.

BOX, Judge:

This is an action by Guaranty National Bank, plaintiff in the trial court, who as a holder of a promissory note brought suit against Robert O. Lister, Jr., defendant, on said note.

The record before this Court reveals the following, to-wit: A judgment was entered for plaintiff and against defendant. Thereafter and within the time to file their petition in error, plaintiff appealed. The petition in error contains the following paragraph, to-wit:

> “That the Defendant and Appellee has filed in the trial court his motion for new trial, setting forth grounds of alleged error and praying that judgment of the trial court be set aside and that judgment be entered for the Defendant and Appellee; that said motion has not been disposed of as of the date of filing of this petition in error.”

The record before this Court bears out the above statement. The record further reveals that both parties took exception to the judgment and actions of the trial court, and the jury verdict. Furthermore, the record before this Court at this time does not reveal a disposition of the Motion for a New Trial.

We are dealing here with the jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. See Merchants Delivery Service, et al. v. Joe Esco Tire Co., et al., 497 P.2d 766.

In Hawkins v. Hurst, 467 P.2d 159, the court syllabus states:

> “The question of jurisdiction is primary and fundamental in every case and must be inquired into and answered by this court, as to its own jurisdiction as well as to the jurisdiction of the court from which the appeal is taken, whether raised by any party or not.” 12 O.S.1971, § 991(a) reads as follows:

> “The right of a party to perfect an appeal from a judgment, order or decree of the trial court to the Supreme Court shall not be conditioned upon his having filed in the trial court a motion for a new trial, *but in the event a motion for a new trial is filed in the trial court by a party adversely affected by the judgment, order or decree, no appeal to the*
>       *617
>       *Supreme Court may be taken 'until subsequent to the ruling by the trial court on the motion for a new trial.*. *.*.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In view of the foregoing, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

Dismissed.

ROMANG, P. J., concurs.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 153

 To prohibit the receipt of Federal financial assistance by sanctuary 
                    cities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. Duncan (for himself, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Norman, 
Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Posey, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. 
 Weber of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
  the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
Oversight and Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the receipt of Federal financial assistance by sanctuary 
                    cities, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SANCTUARY CITIES INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

    Any State or local government that violates section 642 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 
U.S.C. 1373) may not receive any Federal financial assistance (as such 
term is defined in section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, United States Code). 
The Attorney General shall determine annually which State or local 
jurisdictions are not in compliance with section 642 of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and shall report 
such determinations to Congress on March 1 of each year. The Attorney 
General shall also issue a report concerning the compliance of any 
particular State or local jurisdiction at the request of any Member of 
Congress. Any jurisdiction that is found to be out of compliance shall 
be ineligible to receive Federal financial assistance for a minimum 
period of one year, and shall only become eligible again after the 
Attorney General certifies that the jurisdiction is in compliance.
                                 <all>
```
#### State v. Munzig

18022

11/22/96

Affirmed
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

M ARVIN HOLMES

,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § No. 659, 2014 § § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Castle Cou nty § Cr. ID 1210015494 § §

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: February 12 , 2015

Before HOLLAND

, VALIHURA , and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 12 th day of February 201 5

, upon consideration of the opening

brief , the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below , it appears to the

Court that:

(1) The appellant, Marvin Holmes , filed this appeal from the

Superior Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence. The

State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on t he ground that it is

manifest on the fac e of Holmes’ opening brief that his appeal is without

merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) The record reflects that Holmes was convicted in 2013 of

Escape a fter Conviction. The Superior Court sentenced him as a habitual2

offender to eight years at Level V incarceration. This Court affirmed his

conviction and sentence on direct appeal. 1 On August 12, 2014, Holmes

filed a motion for modification of his sentence based on extraordinary

circumstances

. Holmes sought a reduct ion of his sentence because he has

multiple myeloma

, a form of cancer

. After a sentence review hearing in

September 2014 and upon receipt of the State’s response in opposition, the

Superior Court denied Holmes’ motion on November 10, 2014. This appeal

fo llowed.

(3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that a motion for

modification of a sentence of imprisonment that is not filed within 90 days

of sentencing will only be considered in extraordinary circumstances or

pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217, which permits a sente nce modification if the

Department of Correction (DOC) certifies that an inmate has a serious

medical illness and that release of the inmate shall not constitute a

substantial risk to the community or the inmate. 2 In this case, it is

unfortunate that Holm es is suffering from a serious medical condition. But

his condition a lone does not entitle him to a modification of sentence unless

the DOC also certifies that his release shall not constitute a substantial risk

1 Holmes v. State , 2014 WL 3559686 (Del. July 17, 2014).

2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (2015). An application for reduction of sentence filed by the Department of Correction must be submitted to and approved by the Board of Parole before it can be submitted to the Superior Court.3

to the community or to Holmes himself. The DOC has not made the

required certification under § 4217. In the absence of this certification , we
find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying Holmes ’

motion. 3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court is AFFI RMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

3 See Hubbard v. State , 2011 WL 5009772 (Del. Oct. 20, 2011).
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly
Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September, 2012 (the “Report”),
I, John A Hardy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                              
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2012 |  | /s/ John A. Hardy                            
|                         |  | John A. Hardy
        Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Estates of Anibal Berrios and Minerva Berrios, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

April 13, 1959.

*Seymour Cohen*for Dario Berrios, petitioner.

*Dora Aberlin*and *Eugenio Sanchez Ruiz*for Carmen It. Alequin, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

In the judgment of the court, the best interests of the estate will be promoted by the appointment of the petitioner, the father of the decedents. Limited letters of administration will accordingly be granted to him in each estate. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 118.)

The respondent, who is the mother of the decedents, contends that in the decree of divorce which she obtained in Puerto Rico against the petitioner, it was decreed that respondent “ will keep the *patria potestas*over her minor children * * * she being willing that said children — remain as up to the present under the custody of the defendant.” She argues that as a result of that decree, the children retained their domicile in Puerto Rico notwithstanding that they lived with their father in New York, and that Puerto Rico, therefore, is the proper jurisdiction for the appointment of an administrator of the property of each decedent. Insofar as this record shows, no appointment of a personal representative was ever made by any court in Puerto Rico or in any other jurisdiction. We need not now make any determination as to the legal domicile of the decedents. They died in the County of New York. A cause of action for causing their death is asserted against the City of New York and the owner of the premises in which they lived. The cause of action against the City of New York has its situs in this State. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 47.) The cause of action is granted by this State. (Decedent Estate Law, § 130.) The County of New York has jurisdiction to grant letters, exclusive *682of every other comity within the State, by virtue of the occurrence of death herein, (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 45, subd. 2.) The decedents apparently have no property in any other jurisdiction.

The respondent has failed to establish her allegation that petitioner was convicted of a felony. In any event, the facts asserted by her in her answer, even if she had proved them, would not disqualify petitioner. *(Matter of Cohen,*164 Misc. 98,101, affd. 254 App. Div. 571, affd. 278 N. Y. 584.)

Submit decree on notice accordingly.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Johnnie Hargrave

, * From the 91st District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. CV1744561

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 124

- C V * June 29 , 20 2 3

Brecha Roja Land Co.

, LLC, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has considered Johnnie Hargrave ’s motion to dismiss this appeal

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed against Johnnie Hargrave.
24419

#### Hutch v. State

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Mark R.Tauscher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:

 

(1)  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 14,  2009 | By:    | /s/  Mark R. Tauscher                  |
|----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Mark  R. Tauscher                      |
|                                   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                   |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, James G.Thomasch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:

 

(1)  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 14,  2009 | By:    | /s/  James G. Thomasch         |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                                   |   | James  G. Thomasch             |
|                                   |   | Chief  Financial Officer       |
|                                   |   | (Principal  Financial Officer) |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: MARIAN D. TOTH, 

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

PETITION OF: J. GEZA TOTH

:

:

:

:

:

No. 615 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the filing by Applied Energetics, Inc. (the “company”) of its
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
      2008
      (the “Report”) I, Dana A. Marshall, Chief Executive Officer of the company
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:






(i)
                the
                    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                    or 15(d) of
                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                    and




(ii)
                the
                    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
                    the
                    company.




This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Executive Officer of Applied
      Energetics, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this
      written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Applied
      Energetics, Inc. and will be retained by Applied Energetics, Inc. and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




/s/
              Dana A.
              MarshallDana
              A. MarshallChief Executive Officer




Date:
      November 7, 2008
December 1, 1997

19944

#### Estate of Saito, In re

Affirmed, Vacated and Remanded
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 179 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary 

of Defense should review section 504 of title 10, United States Code, 

for purposes related to enlisting certain aliens in the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. POLIS, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. 

VEASEY, and Mr. TAKANO) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Secretary of Defense should review section 504 of 

title 10, United States Code, for purposes related to 

enlisting certain aliens in the Armed Forces. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Secretary of Defense should review 

3 section 504 of title 10, United States Code, for the pur4 pose of making a determination and authorization pursu5 ant to subsection (b)(2) of such section regarding the en6 listment in the Armed Forces of an alien who possesses 

7 an employment authorization document issued under the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 179 IH 

1 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program of the 

2 Department of Homeland Security established pursuant to 

3 the memorandum of the Secretary of Homeland Security 

4 dated June 15, 2012. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
Chaplain James Ford Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Linden

Year
    2001

Location
      
Capitol Square, S.W.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text of the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Commemorative Tree

*Tilia cordata ‘greenspire’*
(Greenspire Linden)

In recognition of James David Ford
Chaplain Emeritus
U.S. House of Representatives
1979 - 2000

Sponsored by
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

Planted on August 10, 2001 Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe